Re: Repost: [PATCH] Fix long double tests when default long double is not IBM.

2021-07-14 Thread Segher Boessenkool
hi! On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 03:58:37PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote: > +/* We force the long double type to be IBM 128-bit because the > CONVERT_TO_PINF There is no "forcing" here. "We use ..." or "We require ..." is fine. "Force" suggests something tries to prevent you. "Override" is worse.

Re: Repost: [PATCH] Fix long double tests when default long double is not IBM.

2021-07-14 Thread Michael Meissner via Gcc-patches
On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 11:11:29AM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote: > Just for my edification, can you remind me why we need -Wno-psabi? > What warning are we disabling?  Same question for ieee variant. > > LGTM in any event.  Recommend approval by maintainers... Unless you configured GCC with a 2.32 o

Re: Repost: [PATCH] Fix long double tests when default long double is not IBM.

2021-07-14 Thread Bill Schmidt via Gcc-patches
Hi Mike, On 7/7/21 2:58 PM, Michael Meissner wrote: [PATCH] Fix long double tests when default long double is not IBM. This patch adds 3 more selections to target-supports.exp to see if we can force the compiler to use a particular long double format (IEEE 128-bit, IBM extended double, 64-bit),